influence of granite-gravel combination on the …

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 14, No. 5 (2019) 2746 - 2760 © School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

2746

INFLUENCE OF GRANITE-GRAVEL COMBINATION ON THE STRENGTH OF SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

GIDEON O. BAMIGBOYE1,*, ADEOLA A. ADEDEJI2, DAVID O.OLUKANNI1, ABIODUN J. OMOLEYE3, KAYODE J. JOLAYEMI1

1Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Covenant University,

KM 10 Idiroko Road, Cannanland, PMB 1023, Ota, Ogun, Nigeria 2Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ilorin,

PMB 1515, Ilorin, Kwara, Nigeria 3Department of Chemical Engineering, Covenant University, KM 10 Idiroko Road,

Cannanland, PMB 1023, Ota, Ogun, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

This study focusses on the influence of granite-gravel (washed and unwashed)

combination as coarse aggregate on hardened properties of Self-Compacting

Concrete (SCC). Granite-gravel combination in varying percentages was used as

coarse aggregates to produce SCC while other concrete constituents were kept

constant. The experiments executed on hardened SCC were compressive and split

tensile strength. Concrete were made using 150 mm cubes and 100 mm × 200

mm cylinders. Data obtained were analysed using graphical illustrations while

Minitab was used to model values for the mix proportions. The compressive

strength of SCC produced reliable results with a minimum strength of 30.96

N/mm² for 50% washed gravel at 28 days of which, the strength also increases as

curing age increased. The split tensile strength of SCC increases as the curing

day increased but decreased as gravel content increased with 50/50 threshold

limit. The Surface plots analysis shows that the percentage increase of granite-

washed gravel combination as coarse aggregate and curing ages in SCC has

significant impact on compressive strength. It can be concluded that

granite/gravel combination as coarse aggregates in SCC production is feasible

and reliable provided the threshold limits of 50% washed gravel and 30%

unwashed gravel are not exceeded.

Keywords: Aggregates, Cement, Compressive strength, Concrete, Granite and

gravel, Self-compacting concrete.

Influence of Granite-Gravel Combination on the Strength of . . . . 2747

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2019, Vol. 14(5)

1. Introduction

EFRNARC [1] reported that self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a non-segregating

and flowable concrete that can spread into place and fill the form work without

internal and external vibration. The ease of flow, reduction in the time of casting,

placement, flexibility in the architectural and structural design are some of the

importance of studying self-compacting concrete. Topcu and Uygunoglu [2]

reported that the upward movement of coarse aggregates as a result of plain

concrete vibration, may lead to segregation of fresh concrete during transporting

and placing of concrete. The introduction of self-compacting concrete provides

lasting solution for upward movement of coarse aggregates due to easy flow of

aggregates without vibration. The hardened properties of concrete as well as

construction productivity and job site safety can be increased using SCC [3].

However, to achieve workable and durable SCC greater technical expertise and

quality control measures are required. SCC produced better results with respect to

higher cement content, higher paste volume, lower water-cementitious materials,

fine and coarse aggregates content [4].

Different factors such as properties of aggregates, mix proportions, type of

admixtures, temperature, cement characteristics, mixing condition and time can

affect the rheology of concrete [5]. Aggregate properties are the utmost factor

among the factors mentioned because it occupies 70-80% of the entire volume of

conventional concrete [6]. However, aggregates mostly constitute approximately

60% by volume of self-compacting concrete. It plays major roles on the

characteristic properties of SCC, due to the large volume fraction it occupies and

can be expected to have significant effect on other properties as well [2]. To achieve

economical SCC, the constituent materials of SCC and mixture proportions should

be properly selected. There are two categories of aggregate used in concrete

production namely; fine aggregates and coarse aggregates. Fine aggregates are

those that pass through a 4.75 mm square mesh sieve [7-9]. Coarse aggregates used

for this study were made up of gravel and granite with particles mostly greater than

5 mm and usually between 9.5 mm and 12.5 mm

Gravel and granite were studied as coarse aggregates in this current work.

Granite and gravel are coarse aggregates used in concrete production. In most part

of Nigeria gravel is readily available and is acquired at cheaper price than granite.

The availability and cost of aggregates play vita role when selecting aggregates for

civil engineering applications because of the quantities required for concrete

production [10, 11]. Frequently, one of the primary challenges facing the materials

engineer on a project is how to use the locally available material in the most cost-

effective manner for both conventional and self-compacting concrete [12, 13].

Hence, any backing for totally new or combined (composite) materials must be

examined structurally and mechanically, to establish their short-time and long-time

behaviours. This will definitely be of assistance to create a well-defined boundary

for concrete constituents selection.

Topcu and Uygunoglu [2] reported that due to the large volume fraction

aggregate occupies in SCC, it is expected to have significant influence on the

characteristic proportions of the mix and other properties as well. Kim et al. [14]

studied self-compacting concrete produced with lightweight aggregates and found

that decrease in density of lightweight aggregates improves the flowability with an

increase in resistance to segregation. Bamigboye et al. [15] studied the influence of

2748 G. O. Bamigboye et al.


aggregate properties on strength of concrete and reported that the flakiness of

coarse aggregates adversely affected the workability and mobility of concrete as

well as the strength, which decreased with the increasing flakiness. Yang and

Huang [16] and Ede et al., [17] reported that the behaviour of composite materials

such as self-compacting concrete are determine by the physical and chemical

properties of constituents materials. Bouzoubea and Lanchemi [18] studied SCC

combining high-volume fly class F ash with cement and found that as fly ash and

water cement ratio percentage decreases the concrete strength increases.

This current study focusses on influence of granite-gravel (both washed and

unwashed) combination as coarse aggregate on compressive and split tensile

strengths of self-compacting concrete towards a sustainable construction material.

The sustainability of SCC using granite and gravel combination as coarse aggregates

can be judged based on availability and affordability of gravel. Gravel is readily

available and cheaper than granite in most part of Nigeria [19]. The utilization of

gravel allows the efficient use and conservation of locally available resources.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials, which were used in this study are washed gravel, unwashed gravel

and granite as coarse aggregates in line with ASTM C136 [20], natural river sand

as fine aggregates in line with ASTM C33 [21]. Ordinary Portland cement (CEM

42.5N), which conforms to the standard specified in ASTM C150 [22], was used

throughout the experiment. Coarse aggregates used were granite and gravel with

12. 5 mm maximum for all the mix. Tap water was used for mixing the concrete in

accordance with ASTM C31 [23]. Aggregates grading into various sizes was

determined by sieve analysis in line ASTM C136 [20].

The specific gravity of fine and coarse aggregates (granite and gravel) were

determined using buoyancy apparatus in line with ASTM C127-15 [24] for fine and

ASTM C128-15 [25] for coarse aggregates. Also, the water absorption of the

aggregates used was determined in accordance with ASTM C1585-13 [26]. The bulk

specific gravity (SG), bulk saturated surface dry (SSD) specific gravity, apparent

specific gravity and water absorption of the samples were determined. Batching of

concrete was done by weight [27]. Table 1 provides details of batching and mixing

for both washed and unwashed gravel where SCC1 represent 100% granite, which is

the control while SCC2, SCC3, SCC4, SCC5 and SCC6 represent 10%, 20%, 30%,

40%, 50% granite replacement with gravel in line with EFNARC [1].

Granite-gravel combination in varying percentages was used as coarse

aggregates while other concrete constituents were kept constant. The compressive

strength of concrete produced was determined in agreement with ASTM C39 [28]

standard using 150 mm concrete cubes. The split tensile strength was determined

according to ASTM C496 [29] standard using 100 × 200 mm for concrete

specimens produced from SCC. The specimens (fresh concrete) were cast in 150 ×

150 × 150 mm and 100 mm × 200 mm molds without shaking and tamping for SCC

specimens. For split tensile the cylindrical specimens were crushed along two

diametrically opposed generators to avert multiple cracking and crushing at the

point of loading. Fig. 1. showing the compression machine use for both

compressive and split tensile strength tests. The data obtained were analysed using

graphical illustrations while Minitab 17 was used to model strength values.



Table 1. Mix proportions of self-compacting concrete samples [3].

S/

N

Mix

samples

Mix

proportion

(%)

Cement

(g)

Fine

aggregate

(g)

Coarse aggregate

(g) Water (g)

Super-

plasticizer

(%) Granite Gravel

1 SCC1 100 561 977 620 - 168.8 1.14

2 SCC2 90/10 561 977 558 62 168.8 1.14

3 SCC3 80/20 561 977 496 124 168.8 1.14

4 SCC4 70/30 561 977 434 186 168.8 1.14

5 SCC5 60/40 561 977 372 248 168.8 1.14

SCC6 50/50 561 977 310 310 168.8 1.14

Fig. 1. Compression machine use for both compressive

and split tensile strength tests with cube under load.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Particle size distribution for aggregates

The grading curves of sand, gravel and granite for sieve analysis are as shown in

Figs. 2 and 3. Particle size graphs formed S-shape curves, and it was concluded that

the fine and coarse aggregates used for this study are well graded and are therefore

suitable for concrete production [20, 30, 31].

Fig. 2. Sharp sand grading curve.



Fig. 3. Grading curves for granite and gravel.

3.2. Specific gravity and water absorption

The specific gravity and water absorption of the aggregates used for this study were

determined to indirectly measure the aggregates strength for durable concrete

production and also to know the pores and voidage in the aggregates. The specific

gravity obtained for fine aggregate used in this study was 2.64, which is line with

ASTM C33 [21] standard, while bulk specific gravity, bulk SSD specific gravity and

apparent specific gravity obtained for granite were 2.59, 2.60 and 2.61 respectively.

Also, the bulk specific gravity, bulk SSD specific gravity and apparent specific

gravity obtained for gravel were 2.67, 2.68 and 2.69 respectively. The specific gravity

results obtained from this study were as expected because the relation bulk specific

gravity<SSD<apparent hold as specified by ASTM C33 [21]. According to ASTM

C33 [21], specific gravity for normal weight aggregates ranges between 2.40-3.00.

Kosmatka et al. [32] recommended that the natural aggregates relative density should

fall in between 2.4 and 2.9. It should be noted that the higher the specific gravity, the

denser the rock is and stronger is the aggregates

The concrete quality is control by amount of water absorption by the aggregates.

The water absorption values obtained from all the samples (sand, granite and

gravel) tested in this study are below 2% recommended by ASTM C33 [21]. The

water absorption obtained for fine sand was 0.7% while that of granite and gravel

were 0.26% and 0.21% respectively. The result shows that gravel with 0.21% water

absorption is the soundest and has the least amount of pore spaces and sand with

0.7% has the highest amount of pore spaces. The more the water absorption, the

higher the voidage because water absorption depends on the pores and voidage in

rock. Neville [33] reported that in concrete mix proportioning, additional water and

cement will be needed by aggregates with considerable absorption to make

workable fresh concrete and to meet the water-cement ratio requirement.

3.3. SCC fresh properties for washed and unwashed gravel

Tables 2 and 3 show the workability results for SCC concrete with washed and

unwashed gravel aggregates. From Table 2 the results obtained for SCCI –SCC3 fell



into SCC class 2 with slum flow ranging from 600-750mm and T500≥ 2𝑠. Also,

SCC4-SCC6 were classified as class 1 with slump flow ranging between 550-650

mm and T500 ≤ 2 s. Hence, From Table 2 it was discovered that SCC1, SCC2 and

SCC6 were classified as class 2 while SCC3, SCC4 and SCC5 were classified as class

1. V-funnel results for washed and unwashed show that the mix were satisfactory. L-

box results for washed and unwashed gravel show good passing ability. For both

washed and unwashed gravel SCC4 has the highest segregation resistance. All the

results obtained from the study are in line with EFNARC [1] standard.

Table 2. Fresh properties of SCC with varying proportions of washed gravel [4].

Mix

samples

Slump

(mm)

T500 (s)

(2-5 s)

V-funnel

(s)

L-box

(mm)

(0.8-1.0)

Segregation

resistance

(%)

SCC1 600 2.89 6.21 0.9 4.3

SCC2 653 2.08 3.69 0.8 4.2

SCC3 624 2.21 3.43 0.82 4.0

SCC4 560 1.98 6.75 1.0 1.5

SCC5 522 1.70 4.68 0.75 3.3

SCC6 555 2.0 3.98 0.87 3.7

Table 3. Fresh properties of self-compacting

concrete made with varying proportions of unwashed gravel [3].

Mix

samples

Slump

(mm)

T500 (s)

(2-5 s)

V-Funnel

(s)

L-Box

(mm)

(0.8-1.0)

Segregation

resistance

(%)

SCC1 600 2.89 6.21 0.9 4.3

SCC2 636 2.45 4.34 0.8 6.9

SCC3 585 2.11 4.84 0.6 2.2

SCC4 563 2.11 4.56 0.75 2.1

SCC5 552 2.38 4.72 0.67 5.7

SCC6 635 2.01 3.91 0.87 3.9

3.4. Compressive strength for granite-gravel (washed and unwashed)

combination

The behaviour of concrete under compressive load and the strength of concrete

produce with granite-gravel (washed and unwashed) as coarse aggregates in SCC

were determined to know the extent of such materials to resist axially directed

pushing forces. The relationship between compressive strength of concrete and

periods of immersion (water curing) in days was presented in Figs. 4 and 5

respectively. The percentage variations of washed and unwashed gravel with

granite as coarse aggregate in SCC specimens were tested at 7, 14, 21, 28, 56 and

90 days of curing. From the test results obtained from experimental study, it was

detected that, compressive strength increases with increase in curing ages and as

the percentage of washed gravel content increases the strength decreases.

Neville [34] reported that the compressive strength of concrete can be significantly

influenced by the following factors cement type, aggregates content, water-cement

ratio, water curing period and exposure conditions. The formation of calcium-silicate-

hydrate (CSH) gel during the hydration reaction increases the compressive strength of

which, the hydration reaction is a never-ending process [35]. Curing ages play major

roles in strength development and durability of concrete. Concrete compressive strength



is greatly influenced by curing since the hydration of cement is greatly influenced by it.

A proper curing maintaining a suitably warm and moist environment of hydration

products and thus, reduces the porosity in hydrated cement paste, which leads to

increases in the density of microstructure in concrete [36].

Johnson et al. [37] found that increase in curing age increase the compressive

strength of concrete while decrease in porosity leads to increase in compressive

strength for the stipulated curing ages. The increase in strength was prominent

starting from 7 days up to 90 days strength for washed gravel with 100% granite

which is the control producing the highest strength followed by 90%, 80%, 70%,

60% and 50% respectively. The 21.78 N/mm² strength produced at 7 days by 50%

granite/washed gravel contents as coarse aggregate in SCC, which satisfied the

minimum 28 days characteristic or specified strength of 21 N/mm2 for reinforced

concrete as specified by BS 8110 and EC 2 [38, 39] is a prove that SCC using

granite–gravel combination as coarse aggregates produced high strength concrete

compared to conventional concrete. The range of strength produced by SCC for

100 percent granite to 50/50 percentage proportion of granite/gravel combination

varied from 21.78 N/mm2 to 30.02 N/mm2 at 7 days, from 28.14 N/mm2 to 34.71

N/mm2 at 14 days, from 29.04 N/mm2 to 36.44 N/mm2 at 21 days, from 30.96

N/mm2 to 38.67 N/mm2 at 28 days, from 35.56 N/mm2 to 42.80 N/mm2 at 56 days

and from 37.11 N/mm2 to 45.56 N/mm2 at 90 days.

From Fig. 5 at 50% unwashed gravel aggregate combination with granite the

low in strength was discovered in compressive strength and it was due to the

presence of silty materials in the unwashed gravel aggregate, which lead to decrease

in the aggregate-cement paste bound. The significant decrease in strength, as the

percentage of unwashed gravel increases, was as a result of increase silty materials

present in the unwashed gravel compared with 100% granite [40]. The outcomes

from this study shows that the inter connectivity of pores, (which is one of concrete

permeability factors) in concrete containing granite-washed gravel combination as

coarse aggregate is more than that of concrete containing granite-unwashed gravel

combination as coarse aggregate [41-44].

Fig. 4. Interaction between compressive strength of SCC

of varying granite/washed gravel and periods of immersion in days.



Fig. 5. Interaction between compressive strength of SCC of

varying granite/unwashed gravel and periods of immersion in days.

3.5. Split tensile strength of granite-gravel combination

The granite-gravel combination as coarse aggregate in SCC effect on split tensile

was considered for washed and unwashed gravel in varying percentages. The

results are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. The split tensile strength increases as the

curing days increases and decrease as the percentage of gravel content decreases.

Split tensile strength of self-compacting concrete produced from granite-washed

gravel combination for 100 percent granite, which serve as control to 50/50 granite-

washed gravel combination ranges from 4.14 N/mm2 to 2.84 N/mm2 at 28 days,

4.62 N/mm2 to 3.07 N/mm2 at 56 days and 5.09 N/mm2 to 3.47 N/mm2 at 90 days.

However, the following were obtained for unwashed gravel 4.14 N/mm2 to 2.42

N/mm2 at 28 days, 4.62 N/mm2 to 2.61 N/mm2 at 56 days, 5.09 N/mm2 to 3.21

N/mm2. Despite the low strength generated in early ages of SCC, they later

produced satisfactory strength. The SCC specimen’s failure for split tensile

occurred at the weak interfacial zone between normal aggregate and cement paste,

this is as a result of aggregate strength greater than the bond strength [31, 41, 42].

Fig. 6. Interaction between split tensile strength of SCC

of varying granite/washed gravel and periods of immersion in days.



Fig. 7. Interaction between split tensile strength of SCC

of varying granite/unwashed gravel and periods of immersion in days.

3.6. Surface plots of SCC granite/washed gravel combination as coarse

aggregates using MINITAB

Minitab 17 was used to predict the compressive strength of concrete at any age with

varying granite-gravel combination as coarse aggregate while other constituents

remain constant. Strength prediction in concrete plays vital role in reducing

construction cost and ensuring safety in construction ASTM C1074-19 [45]. Many

factors such as cement, aggregates types, water/cement ratio and water curing

medium influence the compressive strength of concrete [46]. This model helps in

predicting compressive strength for a specified SCC mix at varying granite-gravel

as coarse aggregate and curing ages while others concrete constituents such as fine

aggregates, cement, water, superplasticizer remain constant. The three-dimensional

(3D) response surface plots of compressive strength versus granite aggregates,

compressive strength versus gravel aggregates and compressive strength versus

curing days were plotted. These plots show the predicted effect of variables granite,

gravel and curing days on compressive strength as the response.

3.6.1. Surface plots of compressive strength versus percentage of granite and

percentage proportion of washed gravel

Surface plot of compressive strength versus percentage proportion of granite,

percentage proportion of washed gravel as shown in Fig. 8 shows the influence of

granite-gravel mixture on compressive strength of SCC. The lowest condition in

washed gravel case produced the highest compressive strength. As the proportion

of washed gravel content increases, compressive strength decreases. At the highest

washed gravel proportion, the compressive strength has reduced to less than 30

Nmm². The highest percentage proportion of granite and the lowest percentage

proportion of gravel gave the highest compressive strength of about 45.56 Nmm².



Fig. 8. Response surface plot of proportions of

granite and gravel against compressive strength.

3.6.2. Plot of strength versus curing days and proportion of granite

The effect of percentage proportion of granite and curing days on compressive

strength of self-compacting concrete are shown in Fig. 9. Compressive strength

increases as the curing day’s increases with increase in percentage proportion of

granite. The highest curing day and percentage proportion of granite produced the

highest compressive strength of 56 Nmm².

Fig. 9. Response surface plot of proportions of

granite and curing days against compressive strength.

3.6.3. Surface plot of compressive versus curing days and proportion of gravel

Figure 10 shows the interaction of percentage proportion of washed gravel and

curing days and their effect on the compressive strength of SCC. Compressive

5075

100

20

30

75

50

25

0

0125

40

ngth (Nmm2)erts.pmoC

o oitroporP n )%( levarG f

r )%( etinarG foportionP o

5075

100

20

32

0

0125

80

40

120

44

56

Nmm2)( htgnerts .pmoC

gnruC i syad

)%( etinarG fo noitropP or



strength increases as the curing day’s increases with increase in percentage

proportion of washed gravel. The highest curing day and percentage proportion of

gravel produced the highest compressive strength of 50 Nmm².

Fig. 10. Response surface plot of proportions of washed

gravel and curing days against compressive strength.

4. Conclusions

From the study the following conclusions were drawn

The results obtained from the study, which fell in between 2.4-2.9 and less than

2% for specific gravity and water absorption respectively, shows that aggregates

(sand, gravel and granite) used for the study are durable and at the same time

possess good strength for concrete production.

From the test results obtained from experimental study of hardened SCC, the

compressive and split tensile strength increases with increase in curing ages and

decreased with increase in percentages of gravel content for both washed and

unwashed content.

The compressive strength of SCC, made of 50% washed gravel and 30%

unwashed gravel as partial replacement of granite aggregates, was reliable for

structural applications for reinforced concrete.

For split tensile strength of SCC produced 30% washed gravel as partial

replacement for granite was reliable for structural applications, the

reliable percentages of granite/gravel content satisfying the minimum

strength requirements.

The models could be used for process behaviors and strength prediction for the

performance measure of granite-gravel combination as coarse aggregates in SCC

while other parameters such as fine aggregates, water, cement and

superplasticizers are kept constant.

Curing of SCC concrete in deicers environment for a period of 365 days to

determine its impact on long time cured concrete need further study

025

50

20

30

40

0

75

80

40

120

40

50

Nmm2)( htgnerts .pmoC

giruC n syad

)%( levarG fo noitropoP r



Varying of Sodium Chloride (NaCl) and Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3)

concentrations to determine the behaviour of SCC under different concentrations

should be investigated;

Therefore, the results of this work should be used as the basis for further studies

on investigation of granite-gravel combination as coarse aggregate in SCC.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the chancellor and the management of Covenant University

for the platform made available for this research and for sponsoring the publication

of this work.

Abbreviations

3D Three Dimensional

ASTM American Society of Testing Materials

BS British Standard

C Concrete System

CSH Calcium Silicate Hydrate

EC Eurocode

EFNAR European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemical and

SCC Self-Compacting Concrete

SG Specific Gravity

SSD Saturated Surface Dry

References

1. EFNARC. (2002). Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete.

Surrey, United Kingdom: EFNARC.

2. Topcu, I.B.; and Uygunoglu, T. (2010). Effect of aggregate type on properties

of hardened self-consolidating ligthweight concrete (SCLC). Construction and

Building Materials, 24(7), 1286-1295.

3. Bamigboye, G.O.; Olukanni, D.O., Adedeji, A.A.; and Jolayemi K.J. (2017).

Experimental study on the workability of self-compacting granite and

unwashed gravel concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research in

Africa, 31, 69-76.

4. Bamigboye, G.O.; Adedeji, A.A.; Olukanni, D.O.; and Jolayemi K.J. (2017).

Effect of granite/gravel (washed) combination on fresh properties of self-

compacting concrete. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,

12(15), 4799-4805.

5. Lomboy, G.R.; Wang, X.; and Wang, K. (2014). Rheological behavior and

formwork pressure of SCC,SFSCC and NC mixtures. Cement and Concrete

Composites, 54, 110-116.

6. Neville, A.M. (2000). Properties of concrete (4th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson

Education Limited.

7. Najigivi, A.; Khaloo, A.; zad, A.I.; and Rashid, S.A. (2013). Investigating the

effect of using different types of SiO2 nanoparticles on the mechanical properties

binary blended concrete. Composite Part B: Engineering, 54, 52-58.



8. Greenhut, V.A.; Idol, J.D.; Lehman, R.; Strange, D.J.; Kosmatka, S.H.;

Goswami, B.C.;Wang, W.; Ridilla, R.A.; Buczek, M.B.; and Fischer, W.F.

(2004). Handbook of Mechanical Engineering (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida:

CRC Press.

9. Bamigboye G.O.; Olukanni D.O.; Adedeji A.A.; Ofuyatan O.; Busari A.A.;

Tenebe, I.T.; Emenike P.C.; and Oniemayin, B. (2017). Assessment of gravel

properties sourced within Oyo North Senatorial District: Case study of

Ogbomoso. International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, 28, 45-52.

10. Ede, A.N.; Adebayo, S.O.; Bamigboye, G.O.; and Ogundeji, J. (2015).

Structural economic and environmental study of concrete and timber as

structural members for residential buildings in Nigeria. The International

Journal of Engineering and Science, (IJES), 4(3), 76-84.

11. Ede, A.N.; Olofinnade, O.M.; Ugwu, E.I.; Salau, A.O. (2018). Potential of

momoridica angushsepala fiber in ehancing strength of normal portland

cement concrete. Cogent Engineering, 5(1), 1431353.

12. Goodeir, C.I. (2003). Development of self-compacting concrete. Proceedings of

the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Building, 156(4), 405-414.

13. Nilsson, M. (1998). Project on self-compacting bridge concrete. Publikation,

71E, 19 pages.

14. Kim, Y.J.; Choi, Y.W.; and Lachemi, M. (2010). Characteristic of self-

compacting concrete using two types of lightweigth coarse aggregates.

Construction and Building Materials, 24(1), 11-16.

15. Bamigboye, G.; Adedeji, A.; Olukanni, D.; and Jolayemi, K. (2017).

Reliability of gravel in place of granite in concrete production. Journal of

Engineering and Applied of Sciences, 12(20); 5121-5128.

16. Yang, C.C.; and Huang, R. (1996). A two-phase model for predicting the

compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 26(10),

1567-1577.

17. Ede, A.N.; Olofinnade, O.M.; Bamigboye, G.O.; Shittu, K.K.; and Ugwu, E.I.

(2017). Prediction of fresh and hardened properties of normal concrete via

choice of aggregate sizes. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology (IJCIET), 8(10), 288-301.

18. Bouzoubea, N. and Lanchemi, M. (2001). Self-compacting concrete

incorporating high volume of class F fly ash: Preliminary results. Cement and

Concrete Research, 31(3), 413-420.

19. Bamigboye, G.O.; Ede, A.N.; Raheem, A.A.; Olofinnade, O.M.; and Okorie,

U. (2016). Economic exploitation of gravel in place of granite in concrete

production. Material Science Forum, 866, 73-77.

20. ASTM International. (2014). Standard test method for seive analysis of fine

and coarse aggregates. ASTM C136/C136M-14.

21. ASTM International. (2003). Standard specification for concrete aggregates.

ASTM C33/C33M-18.

22. ASTM International. (2007). Standard specification for Portland cement.

ASTM C150/C150M-19a.

23. ASTM International. (2015). Practice for making and curing concrete test

specimens in the field. ASTM C31/C31M-19.



24. ASTM International. (2015). Standard test method for relative density (specific

gravity) and absorption of coarse aggregates. ASTM C127-15.

25. ASTM International. (2015). Standard test method for relative density (specific

gravity) and absorption of fine aggregates. ASTM C128-15.

26. ASTM International. (2013). Standard test method for measurement of rate of

absorption of water by hydraulic-cement concretes. ASTM C1585-13.

27. British Standards Institution. (1983). Methods of testing concrete. Method of

determination of slump. BS1881-102.

28. ASTM International. (2003). Standard test methods for compressive strength

of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM C39/C39M-18.

29. ASTM International. (2014). Standard test method for spliting tensile strength

of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM C496/C496 M-17.

30. Pawar, C.; Sharma, P.; and Titiksh, A. (2016). Gradations of aggregates and

its effects on properties of concrete. International Journal of Trend in

Research and Development. 3(2), 2394-9333.

31. Malewar, Y.; Saleem, S.; and Titiksh, A. (2017). Gap grading of aggregates

and its effect on the inherent properties of concrete. Journal of Ceramics and

Concrete Sciences, 2(1), 1-8.

32. Kosmatka, S.H.; Kerkhoff, B.; and Panarese, W.C. (2003). Design and control

of concrete mixtures (14th ed.). Skokie, Illinois, United States of America:

Portland Cement Association.

33. Neville, A.M. (2011). Properties of concrete performance (5th ed.). Essex,

England: Pearson Education Limited.

34. Neville, A.M. (1986). Properties of concrete. (3th ed.), Pearson Education

Limited, England: Longman.

35. Elaty, M.A.A.A. (2014). Compressive strength prediction of Portland cment

concrete with age using a new model. Housing and Building National

Research Center Journal (HBRC), 10(2), 145-155.

36. Uddin, M.A.; Jameel, M.; Sobuz, H.R.; Hassan, N.M.S.; Islam, M.S.; and

Amanat, K.M. (2012). The effect of curing time on compressive strength of

composite concrete. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 204-208, 4105-4109.

37. Johnson, O.A.; Madzlan, N.; and Kamaruddin, I. (2014). Effect of curing age

on the compressive strength of petrovege blocks. Advanced Materials

Research, 980, 91-96.

38. British Standards Institution. (1997). Structural use of concrete. Part 1: Code

of practice for design and construction. BS 8110-1.

39. British Standards Institution. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete

structures - Part1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1.

40. Siddique, R. (2013). Compressive strength, water absorption, sorptivity,

abrasion resistance and permeabilty of self-compacting concrete containing

coal bottom ash. Construction and Building Material, 47, 1444-1450.

41. Owaid, H.M.; Ghali, Z.A.S.; and Ali, S.A. (2018). Compressive strength,

ultrasonic pulse velocity and transport properties of self-compacting high

performance concrete made with Iraqi Metakaolin. International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(7), 31-44.



42. Liu, R.; Liu, H.; Sha, F.; Yang, H.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, S.; and Zheng, Z. (2018).

Investigation of the porosity distribution, permeability, and mechanical

performance of pervious concretes. Processes, 6(7), 1-14.

43. Martin III, W.D.; Kaye, N.B.; and Putman, B.J. (2014). Impact of vertical

porosity distribution on the permeability of pervious concrete. Construction

and Building Materials, 59, 78-84.

44. Lian, C.; Zhuge, Y.; and Beecham, S. (2011). The relationship between

porosity and strength for porous concrete. Construction and Building

Materials, 25(11), 4294-4298.

45. ASTM International. (2011). Standard practice for estimating concrete

strength by the maturity method. ASTM C1074-19.

46. Colak, A. (2006). A new model for estimation of compressive strength of

Portland cement concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 36(7), 1409-1413.

influence of granite-gravel combination on the …

Documents